>From : Diana Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Date: lundi 29 avril 2002 17:45 > > >On April 29, 2002, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > >> I can only speak for myself, but this process seems a little bit >> over complicated as it involves many stages. We don't want to print >> a book, we only want good documentation. > >What is the difference? Why are Cocoon developers working so >hard and so >brilliantly to implement "best practices" in Cocoon software and yet >seemingly willing to ignore "best practices" in producing "good" >documentation? Just because the cvs model of peer review works >well for >open source does not necessarily mean it's the optimal approach for >producing quality documentation. Just because this is an open source >documentation project doesn't mean it can't have, at least as a goal, >first-rate documentation.
<mode type="hardheaded"> imHo, the difference is that people working on Cocoon enjoy coding, and have fun working un such an interesting "best-practicised" projet, with such valuable people. If people here enjoyed working with newbies to produce interesting doc, they'd love your process, but I'm afraid Cocoon's doc are only written because we HAVE TO write doc if the cod to be usefull, and that make a BIG difference. </mode> The advantage of a "patch oriented process" is that people with few knowlegde can easily start a doc, and people with few time can easily patch it. The disadvantage is, of course, that there will be some errors/outdate/out_of_topic from time to time. BTW, if i'm wrong and if there are people willing to write doc only for fun (or glory), I think your process is OK. fabien. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
